Where are all the blind people?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by leebase

Hundreds of millions play those first person shooter games with no problem. Me, I get motion sickness when I play them. It’s a real problem for me...but not a general problem for the population at large.

Not just shooters.
Some people, me included, find First Person RPGs troublesome.

I found a solution by changing my console gaming from a sitting to a reclining position, which centered my line of sight with the game camera. For me at least it was the vertical alignment that made the motion feel...wrong...
For PC gaming I just raise the monitor to a similar result.

I think it is related to the vestibular mismatch behind VR dizzyness and headaches. Our bodies prefer it when our vision aligns with our physical senses, some are more sensitive.

[crossi]

cell phones only became widely available in the mid 1980's. Not sure how much later before widely used. Wait for the current crop of people who started using them in their teens or before to reach their 80's and compare macular degeneration and cataract percentages VS previous generations at that age. Too soon by several decades to tell if there will be any difference.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by crossi

cell phones only became widely available in the mid 1980's. Not sure how much later before widely used. Wait for the current crop of people who started using them in their teens or before to reach their 80's and compare macular degeneration and cataract percentages VS previous generations at that age. Too soon by several decades to tell if there will be any difference.

Right.
And too soon to be talking of a generational "screen fatigue" favoring paper.
A lot of the carping is fumbling and hype.

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by crossi

cell phones only became widely available in the mid 1980's. Not sure how much later before widely used. Wait for the current crop of people who started using them in their teens or before to reach their 80's and compare macular degeneration and cataract percentages VS previous generations at that age. Too soon by several decades to tell if there will be any difference.

I suspect you are right.

For now, all we can really do is use whichever device is comfortable for our own eyes.

[DiapDealer]

But cell-phones aren't shining any different kind of light in users' eyes than PCs. The notion that we have decades yet to "wait and see" doesn't hold water in my opinion. There have already been millions of sets of eyes staring at the same kind of light put out by cellphones (for hours on-end per-day) for decades. We don't need data provided by eyes that have had decades-worth of cell-phone screen-time exposure. There's nothing new there. There's more than enough data to know right now. And in my opinion, the silence on actual scientific evidence supporting "damage" is quite deafening.

[John F]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

But cell-phones aren't shining any different kind of light in users' eyes than PCs. The notion that we have decades yet to "wait and see" doesn't hold water in my opinion. There have already been millions of sets of eyes staring at the same kind of light put out by cellphones (for hours on-end per-day) for decades. We don't need data provided by eyes that have had decades-worth of cell-phone screen-time exposure. There's nothing new there. There's more than enough data to know right now. And in my opinion, the silence on actual scientific evidence supporting "damage" is quite deafening.

You would think that there would be studies/historical data?

I looked at this page:

From 2000 to 2010, low vision increased from 2,359 to 2908, 23%.

The US population increased from 282 to 309, 10% (this is from a different page).

So the discrepancy is attributed to other things like obesity, diabetes, ...?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by John F

So the discrepancy is attributed to other things like obesity, diabetes, ...?

That's a little misleading. Diabetes and obesity have always been large contributing factors to vision issues. They don't qualify as merely "other things." They very well could be the right things to attribute it to. Did you check to see if an increase in diabetes and obesity more closely matches the increase in vision loss for the same period? I would be very surprised if diabetes and obesity hadn't ballooned at least as much as vision loss in that same time frame. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and walks like a duck; quite often it IS a duck.

[John F]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

That's a little misleading. Diabetes and obesity have always been large contributing factors to vision issues. They don't qualify as merely "other things." They very well could be the right things to attribute it to. Did you check to see if an increase in diabetes and obesity more closely matches the increase in vision loss for the same period? I would be very surprised if diabetes and obesity hadn't ballooned at least as much as vision loss in that same time frame. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and walks like a duck; quite often it IS a duck.

I didn't mean to dismiss "other things", I think I meant the opposite. I had read that diabetes and obesity had ballooned, so I thought that if "other things" contributed to low vision, than it would show in the data, so the effects of displays could be ruled out?

I am not a statistician, so I expect other people to crunch the numbers.

[crane3]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

That's a little misleading. Diabetes and obesity have always been large contributing factors to vision issues. They don't qualify as merely "other things." They very well could be the right things to attribute it to. Did you check to see if an increase in diabetes and obesity more closely matches the increase in vision loss for the same period? I would be very surprised if diabetes and obesity hadn't ballooned at least as much as vision loss in that same time frame. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and walks like a duck; quite often it IS a duck.

My HMO says that I need to have a diabetic retina scan every year.....nothing about about reading on the "wrong" type of screen.

[crane3]

Originally Posted by John F

I didn't mean to dismiss "other things", I think I meant the opposite. I had read that diabetes and obesity had ballooned, so I thought that if "other things" contributed to low vision, than it would show in the data, so the effects of displays could be ruled out?

I am not a statistician, so I expect other people to crunch the numbers.

Statistics "lie" as presented. The statements are based on a bell curve & at a specific part of the curve. Incidents that occur pass the curve band in either direction are "ignored as non-existent" or lying.

Findings are more likely based on what the people doing the studies want to see & accumulate evidence to support their ideas to get more fund money. Coffee was bad; now Coffee is good for the heart. Chocolate was bad but dark chocolate is good for the heart. Alcohol is bad but white wine helps the heart.

What "studies" do we want to follow & what time frame? How do you convince ant-vaccine people to get vaccinated for the flu, measles, etc?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by crossi

cell phones only became widely available in the mid 1980's. Not sure how much later before widely used. Wait for the current crop of people who started using them in their teens or before to reach their 80's and compare macular degeneration and cataract percentages VS previous generations at that age. Too soon by several decades to tell if there will be any difference.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

But cell-phones aren't shining any different kind of light in users' eyes than PCs. The notion that we have decades yet to "wait and see" doesn't hold water in my opinion. There have already been millions of sets of eyes staring at the same kind of light put out by cellphones (for hours on-end per-day) for decades. We don't need data provided by eyes that have had decades-worth of cell-phone screen-time exposure. There's nothing new there. There's more than enough data to know right now. And in my opinion, the silence on actual scientific evidence supporting "damage" is quite deafening.

Light is light.
The issue wouldn't be about LED light or polarized LCD light.
But it might be focal length.

Throughout most of history human vision was focused at a distance for most of the waking day. Craftmen might work at short or medium distances and clerics at short distances but the bulk of the population tended to see things afar.
Then books and craftmanship propagated and over thelast two centuries the use of glass, especially among the young, has propagated. Some is due to better diagnostics, better medicine, some is due to changed behavior, and assigning causality is far from certain.

The open question is how much is due to what.

[Pajamaman]

I can't read books on LCD. I love me E-Ink!

I think the continued existence of e-ink and e-readers is proof that A LOT of readers have the same experience as me.

Unless we're all lying

[John F]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

But cell-phones aren't shining any different kind of light in users' eyes than PCs. The notion that we have decades yet to "wait and see" doesn't hold water in my opinion. There have already been millions of sets of eyes staring at the same kind of light put out by cellphones (for hours on-end per-day) for decades. We don't need data provided by eyes that have had decades-worth of cell-phone screen-time exposure. There's nothing new there. There's more than enough data to know right now. And in my opinion, the silence on actual scientific evidence supporting "damage" is quite deafening.

I hate to ask, but what are we talking about? Are we talking about blindness, headaches, somewhere in between?

I'm concerned about comfortable reading, and I don't want to damage my eyes.

[John F]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The only proven physical impact of screen viewing is eyestrain from the extended fixed focus of the eyes, which is why breaks are recommended to allow the eye muscles to reset. The same effect comes from extended longer distance focus (i.e., driving). Both are temporary. Lighting type has nothing to do with it. Lighting intensity has some effect.

...

Well, that is reassuring. I hope that the other major belief about what causes blindness has been disproven?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Light is light.
The issue wouldn't be about LED light or polarized LCD light.
But it might be focal length.

Throughout most of history human vision was focused at a distance for most of the waking day. Craftmen might work at short or medium distances and clerics at short distances but the bulk of the population tended to see things afar.
Then books and craftmanship propagated and over thelast two centuries the use of glass, especially among the young, has propagated. Some is due to better diagnostics, better medicine, some is due to changed behavior, and assigning causality is far from certain.

The open question is how much is due to what.

That's all fair. I just take issue with the "not enough data yet to say" crowd. There's more than enough data (over more than enough time) on eyeballs, light, devices, and focal-length to "say." We don't need to wait decades more to determine whether or not "damage" is being done to eyes. The problem is that "saying it" (one way or the other) definitively/scientifically/medically is not something that's in either (commercial) side of the Damage Divide's best financial interest. Treating people's conditions and keeping more screens in front of more eyeballs puts a lot of food on a lot of tables.